JUDGMENT B. P. JHA, J. 1 shall dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment, as they arise out of the judgment dated 5th August 1971, passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad Sinha, Third Assistant Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial no. 26 of 1970. 2, Appellant Achhey Lal Sahni (in Criminal Appeal no. 400 of 1971) was convicted in respect of the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Appellant Ram Autar Chamar (in Criminal Appeal no. 470171) has been held guilty in respect of the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. He has also been convicted in respect of the offence under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in short is as folio "Is. It is said that these appellants along with others committed dacoity in the house of Chandra Shekhar Pd. Thakur (P. W. 9) in the night between 4th and 5th September, 1967 at village Dumri, police station Muzaffarpur. In the present case, Achheylal Sahni was identified in the test identification parade held on the 14th February, 19f8 which was conducted by Ram Swarup Das (P.W.7). He prepared the test identification parade chart (Ext. 1). In the test identification parade Kusheshwar Singh (P.W.2): Rajeshwar Thakur (P.W.4) and Chandra Shekhar Pd. Thakur (P.W.9) identified him in the test identification parade. Though the occurrence took place in between 4th and 5th September, 1967, the test identification parade was held on 14th of February, 1968 i. e. after about five months. These witnesses also identified him in the court. It is said about appellant Ram Autar Chamar (appellant in Cr. Appeal 470/71 that few clothes were recovered from his house on 15th September, 1967. He was also identified in the test identification parade held on 5th of October, 1967. The test identification parade was conducted by P.W.8. He prepared the test identification parade chart (Ext. 1/1). In the Test Identification Parade Ashwani Kumar Thakur (P. W. 10) also identified the appellant. 4. Chandra Shekhar Pd. Thakur (P. W.9) lodged the first information report (Ext. 2). 5. The test identification parade was conducted by P.W.8. He prepared the test identification parade chart (Ext. 1/1). In the Test Identification Parade Ashwani Kumar Thakur (P. W. 10) also identified the appellant. 4. Chandra Shekhar Pd. Thakur (P. W.9) lodged the first information report (Ext. 2). 5. The defence of appellant Achhelal Salmi is that the test identification parade is meaningless as he was known to the prosecution witnesses. The defence of appellant Ram Aurar Chamar is that the articles recovered from his house belonged to him. 6. On these facts, learned counsel for the appellant (Achheylal Sahni) contends that the identification in the test identification parade should be rejected in "View of the fact that the witnesses were known to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant Ram Autar Chamar contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the recovered articles were the subject matter of dacoity. 7. It is clear from the evidence that appellant Achhey Lal Sahni (in Criminal Appeal no. 400/7I) was identified in the test identification parade held on 14th February, 1968. The test identification parade was conducted by P.W. 7 and he prepared the test identification parade chart (Ext. 1). In that test identification parade P.Ws. 2. 4 and 9 identified the appellant as one of the dacoits, The evidence of these witnesses have been attacked on the ground that they were knowing the appellant from before. In this connection learned counsel for the appellant refers to paragraph 64 of the evidence of P. W, 9. In paragraph 64, P.W. 9 stated that he executed a registered sale deed in respect of I bigha 5 kathas and 8 dhurs in favour of the mother of Achhey Lal Sahni. The registered sale-deed is exhibit 'A.' In view of this admission and documentary evidence (Ext A), learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant Achhey Lal Sahni was known to the prosecution witnesses since 1961, In my opinion, there is force in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. In this circumstance, I hold that the identification of the appellant in the test identification parade is meaningless In this connection learned counsel for the appellant referred to me the affidavits sworn by P. W. 2 and P. W.9. In paragraph 2 of these two affidavits. P.Ws. In this circumstance, I hold that the identification of the appellant in the test identification parade is meaningless In this connection learned counsel for the appellant referred to me the affidavits sworn by P. W. 2 and P. W.9. In paragraph 2 of these two affidavits. P.Ws. 2 and 9 stated that appellant Achhev Lal Sahni was not in the dacoity, committed on the 4th and 5th September, 1967 in the house of Chandra Shekhar Prasad Thakur. They also stated in paragraph 2 that they were known to appellant Achhey Lal Sahni from before. P. W. 9 admitted the signature on the affidavit. His signature on the affidavit is exhibit 'B'. In view of these affidavits read with the evidence of P. W. 9 in paragraph 9, as referred to above, it is not safe for me to accept the identification made by P.Ws. 2, 4, and 9 in the test identification parade held on 14th February, 1968, which was conducted by P. W. 7. Hence, I reject the identification made by P. Ws. 2, 4, and 9 in the test identification parade held on 14th February, 1968. in view of the fact that these witnesses were known to the appellant from before. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant (Ram Autar Chamar) contends on behalf of his client that the prosecution failed to prove that the articles recovered from the possession of the appellant were the subject matter of the dacoity in this connection, he refers to me the search list (Ext. 5). It is clear from the evidence of P. W. 18 (I. O.) that he conducted the search in the house of appellant Ram Autar Chamar on 15th September, 1967. The search list (Ext. 5) disclosed that P. W. 18 conducted the search at about 5 A. M. on 15th September 1967. He recovered the following articles from the house of appellant Ram Autar Chamar : (i) One Khadi Chadar (material exhibit VI) (ii) One voile Saree (material exhibit VII) (iii) One pillow case (Material exhibit X) (ix) One Dhoti (Material exhibit IX). In the search list Satyanarain Sao and Prasad Sao were mentioned as search witnesses. I have been informed by learned counsel of both the parties that these two search witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. 9. These articles were placed in the test identification parade held on 21st October, 1967. In the search list Satyanarain Sao and Prasad Sao were mentioned as search witnesses. I have been informed by learned counsel of both the parties that these two search witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. 9. These articles were placed in the test identification parade held on 21st October, 1967. The test identification parade was conducted by Sheodutt Ram (P.W. 13) and he prepared test identification chart, (Ext. 1/3.) The test identification parade chart suggests that P. W. 9 identified the Chadar (material. exhibit. VI); voile Saree (material Ext. VII). One pillowcase (material exhibit X). His identification in the test identification parade was challenged mainly on the ground that he identified three wrong articles. This fact is also mentioned in the test identification parade chart. In this circumstance learned counsel contends that the identification by Chandra Pd. Thakur should be rejected. In my opinion there is force in the submission of learned counsel. P. W. 10 identified Chadar voile Saree. New Dhoti and one pillow case. P. W. 16 Lallan Kumar Thakur identified voile Saree and one pillow case. 10. The identification of the articles by these witnesses in the test identification parade was challenged, mainly on the ground that these articles could be ordinarily found in any house. These articles also could be purchased from the market. The search list disclosed that a new Dhoti manufactured by the mill was seized from the house of appellant Ram Autar Chamar. On the other hand in the court the prosecution witnesses identified Khadi Dhoti (Ext. IX) which was recovered from the house of appellant Ram Autar Chamar. The search list did not disclose that any Khadi Dhoti was seized from the house (if appellant Ram Autar Chamar. While these articles were recovered from the house of Ramautar Chamar he himself admitted that these articles belonged to him. In the circumstance, the prosecution was required to prove that these articles were the subject matter of dacoity. In this connection a reference was made to the evidence of P. W. 9. He stated in paragraph 22 of his evidence that he had no money to purchase the clothes. A reference was also made to paragraph 13 of the evidence of P. W. 10 who stated that "the Saree which he identified in the test identification parade belonged to his sister. He stated in paragraph 22 of his evidence that he had no money to purchase the clothes. A reference was also made to paragraph 13 of the evidence of P. W. 10 who stated that "the Saree which he identified in the test identification parade belonged to his sister. He also stated that he did not purchase the Saree from the market. He stated that these articles which were seized from the house of Ram Autar Chamar could be available in the market. It was stated that there was no mark in these articles. In view of the evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 10, I hold that these articles could be available in any house of ordinary means. In my opinion the recovery from the house of the appellant are ordinary articles which can be available in any house. In the earliest opportunity the appellant gave explanation before the Investigating officer at the time of seizure that those Articles belonged to him. In my opinion, the explanation given by the appellant is reasonable and there is no material on the record to reject the explanation. 11. It is a settled law that before an accused can be convicted for receiving stolen goods the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients : (1) that the goods have been stolen. (2) That they have been found in possession of the accused. (3) That the accused knew that they were stolen. In the present case, the case of the prosecution was that the articles which were recovered from the possession of appellant Ram Autar Chamar were the stolen goods. The appellant gave the explanation at the time of the seizure of the articles that the goods belonged to him The prosecution evidence as disclosed by P. W.9 is clear that he had no money to purchase these articles. Hence I hold that the prosecution failed to prove that these articles belonged to P. W. 9. In other words, the prosecution failed to prove that the articles seized were the stolen properties. The onus is always upon the prosecution to prove the three ingredients in respect of offences under section 411 or 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The onus never shifts. In the present case the appellant gave the explanation at the earliest opportunity. In other words, the prosecution failed to prove that the articles seized were the stolen properties. The onus is always upon the prosecution to prove the three ingredients in respect of offences under section 411 or 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The onus never shifts. In the present case the appellant gave the explanation at the earliest opportunity. It is the duty of the court to accept the reasonable explanation, provided the court comes to the conclusion that the explanation might be true, though the court may not be convinced that it is true. It is sufficient for the court to I acquit the accused provided it comes to the conclusion that the explanation may be true. If the court comes to the conclusion that the explanation is untrue, the court will maintain the conviction of the accused. The court should give due weight to the explanation made by the accused at the earliest opportunity, that is at the time of the seizure. 12. In the present case I give benefit of doubt to appellant Ram Autar Chamar in respect of the offence under section 412 of the Indian Penal Code for the simple reason that I accept the explanation that these goods belonged to him. 13. Appellant Ram Autar Chamar was also identified by P. W. 10 in the test identification parade held on 5th October, 1907. It was conducted by P. W. 8. He prepared the test identification parade chart. (Ext. III). I give benefit of doubt to appellant Ramautar Chamar in respect of the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for the simple 'reason that he was identified by P. W. 10 only in the test identification. In view of the single identification, I do not think it safe to convict appellant Ram Autar Chamar in respect of offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. I have also been informed by counsel of both the parties that these appellants have remained in jail for more than seven years, during the trial as well as after conviction. 15. In the result, both the appeals are al1owed. 1 be conviction and sentence of appellant Achhelal Sahni, in respect of the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. 15. In the result, both the appeals are al1owed. 1 be conviction and sentence of appellant Achhelal Sahni, in respect of the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code are set aside. The conviction and sentence of appellant Ram Autar Chamar in respect of the offences under sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Cede are set aside. Appeals allowed.